Sexual Assault if the target-player is OK with it? [Archive]

Kesnit

2013-10-30, 06:32 AM

SiuiS

2013-10-30, 06:43 AM

Fair warning, the last two times this came up, the thread broke down and was locked, fast.

I think this is a discussion that should be had between the players at the table, and no amount of discussion outside that circle will matter. It's a delicate subject and one best handled with discretion.

AMFV

2013-10-30, 06:48 AM

Morph Bark

2013-10-30, 07:01 AM

If she's okay with it, but you're not, I'd say you need to talk to her about it. Like SiuiS said, it's a delicate subject and one best handled with discretion.

Lorsa

2013-10-30, 08:00 AM

If everyone at a roleplaying table is okay with the game that is taking place there isn't a problem. If you're not, it's something you need to discuss so all of you have an agreement as what you consider appropriate and what isn't.

Technically I would find it difficult to have a definition of "being a jerk" where the target's opinion and views didn't enter into it. There are people who are okay with a variety of behaviours or actions towards themselves that would otherwise be considered both morally and legally wrong.

That being said, if YOU are not okay with it then your opinion is perfectly valid too. There is nothing wrong with having preferences.

erikun

2013-10-30, 08:22 AM

I think this is a discussion that should be had between the players at the table, and no amount of discussion outside that circle will matter. It's a delicate subject and one best handled with discretion.
This.

If someone at the table is uncomfortable with the subject, including yourself, then you'll want to talk to people about the subject and how appropriate it would be in the game. The RPG is, above all else, a game and social situation. If people are getting offended enough that it's a concern outside the game, then there's a problem.

This isn't going to be something that you can discuss and correct through rules-conversation, because it's ultimately a social issue and not a rules issue. Some groups are going to be fine with allowing PCs to do literally anything they'd like. Others are going to be uncomfortable with some matters. You might be best starting by talking with your wife about it, especially since it concerns her character directly. Not in an aggressive sense, but in a "I'm not comfortable with this stuff happening in the game I'm playing" sense. After all, she's familiar with the game. She might be able to put your fears to rest, or work something out together without needing to talk to the group.

Kalmageddon

2013-10-30, 08:32 AM

Just what kind of campaing is this exactly? :smalleek:

Anyway... I really don't know what to say, I'm not even sure that I understand the issue at hand. It's not something that can be discussed either, because it all comes down to what your DM wants with his campaign and what the other players want to play.
Just talk to them I guess?

Edit: I would also say that the title of this thread is the understatement of the year. Coming in this discussion I didn't expect that "being a jerk" was sexually assaulting someone. :smallconfused:
You might want to edit the title, some people might be ticked off by the subject, I know I am and I would have preferred to stay away from this.

AgentofHellfire

2013-10-30, 08:35 AM

Well, remember, it is her PC they'd be assaulting, so the person that most has to be okay with it is her. Which she appears to be...

But of course, it may not even matter if none of the other players would actually do that--would they?

tensai_oni

2013-10-30, 08:39 AM

"it's supposed to be fun for everyone, not just you."

Does she (and I'm quite confused as who exactly said that because the post doesn't make it clear, but it doesn't matter here) not see the inherent hypocrisy of this statement?

If one person is not having fun then obviously not everyone is having fun. And if not being able to sexually assault other PCs means the players aren't having fun...

Yeah, I wouldn't play that game.

Lorsa

2013-10-30, 08:40 AM

Oh by the way, doesn't the spell make the target sterile for a certain number of days? At least I am fairly certain I have seen such a spell, which means you could cast it on her instead of yourself and her problem would be solved!

Reathin

2013-10-30, 08:42 AM

My first instinct is that, if the target really is okay with it (and this obviously only applies to their characters), it's acceptable. Handling sexual assault in game is normally about as safe as tap dancing in a minefield, but if both sides are legitimately interested in playing characters where that sort of thing can happen, I'll freely admit that one of my characters was on the receiving end (quite by surprise), and it lead to interesting RP later on. Used carefully (and I really can't emphasize that enough), it can be an incredible tool to inspire emotional investment. Thus, my take is that there aren't lines that must not be crossed (in character) so much as lines that most parties will not be comfortable with crossing, but if they are, no problem.

In most contexts, I (or at least my gut instinct) would agree with your opinion: that any player who'd be willing to do that (PC or not) is thoroughly disturbing. However, in this case, where it's all been cleared OOC, I'd stick with the fact that the players involved seem alright with it. Of course, that doesn't necessarily lessen your discomfort, and it IS a game, whose intent is to be enjoyable. So, assuming you accept the above premise, you can either attempt to let go of the discomfort, or try and change some of the other players' minds. In the latter case, you could make a polite request (since it's not your own character, you can't really make a stronger demand) that maybe this aspect be downplayed or removed, because it's making you uncomfortable. Alternatively, maybe you'd prefer to sit this game out, or take on an unusual roll separate from the party (helping the DM with an antagonist, giving you a sense of separation from the PCs).

Not sure if any of that will be super helpful, but I hope your situation is resolved to everone's satisfaction.

Segev

2013-10-30, 08:58 AM

1) You are perfectly within your rights to ask that certain things not come up in a game. You do not have the right to demand they don't, but you are not in the wrong if you feel you cannot enjoy a game with that specter over your head. "If it's in this game, I will not play" is actually a very mature response, as long as you aren't trying to be a drama-king about it.

1a) Your wife is okay with the prospect. If it still bothers you to have it in the game directed at your wife's character, this is something you still need to discuss. It may seem a bit of a "double standard" if you were to say, "I am okay with it happening to anybody who is okay with it, but not my wife even if she is," but it really isn't. The husband/wife relationship is a union; you share a lot (possibly everything) of yourself with your spouse, and something that happens to your spouse in many ways happens, emotionally, to you as well. I won't say you have a "right" one way or another here, but if it bothers you specifically because she's your wife, that is something you need to discuss thoroughly with her, as openly as possible.

2) If you're okay with it happening at the table, just not to you, discuss this, as well. This can be easily abused by drama-for-manipulation's-sake types of people. "I can't handle character death, so you'd better not kill my character!" being a prime example. Most GMs worth their salt who want ... complicated ... themes in their games can work with reasonable players who have a few specific things they don't want happening to their character. There's usually plenty of other things to complicate those characters' lives that will keep it enjoyable for the player.

Allowing it to happen at the table to OTHER players' characters (so long as those players are fine with it) is also a mature thing to do. It's not that it's immature to be so bothered by it that you can't stick around, but it's also good to not let things bother you more than they have to. And if you can allow others to have their fun while you have yours, so much the better. Again, if you can't handle it and the others really, really want it, you should be the one to separate yourself from it. Join them for something else that won't involve it, later, rather than trying to dictate that they can never play with it.

3) It is not "being a jerk" to play, in a game, any role that all direct participants are okay with. It is only "being a jerk" if indirect participants aren't okay with it if the people playing it knew said indirect participants wouldn't be and sneaked it in anyway (rather than suggesting that it fade to black or that it wait for a game wherein those known to be squicked won't be present).

4) It's probably okay, unless it's been discussed ahead of time and you agreed otherwise, to request that something too graphic or unpleasant for you "fade to black." Discretion shots as used in media work just as well in games.

Alejandro

2013-10-30, 09:20 AM

Does Sterile also protect from STDs? Otherwise, if this happens enough for it to be an issue at the table, it might be a good idea (sadly) to ask your GM if syphilis is a thing in his world, etc.

Lamech

2013-10-30, 09:42 AM

I would stay away from it unless everyone at the table is okay with it. Including the target and the GM obviously.

That said, if everyone is okay with it and it would make the game better: Go for it!

This applies for other things to some degree, but some games require assumptions about what is required. For example when playing DnD Buffy level violence is assumed. People not okay with it should play something else. (Bunnies and Burrows. Its a good game. About Bunnies and alien horrors.)

Kesnit

2013-10-30, 09:45 AM

Is there a history of that sort of behavior, is this concern based on any patterns of behavior?

It sounds pretty unfounded if there is no additional evidence. But if your concerns are accurate, then no, I would not be comfortable with this group.

I've only played 2 games with them, so cannot speak from experience. My wife played with them for several years, and since she is the one who brought up the possibility, I am going on the assumption that the possibility is real.

Just what kind of campaing is this exactly? :smalleek:

The DM's world, where no players under the age of 18 are allowed. Anything can happen.

The thinking behind it is anything the players do, the DM and other players can do. So since she brought sex into the game (through the use of BoEF), anyone else can use it. (That thinking is, obviously, ignoring the difference between sex and sexual assault, which is the major sticking point.)

Edit: I would also say that the title of this thread is the understatement of the year. Coming in this discussion I didn't expect that "being a jerk" was sexually assaulting someone. :smallconfused:
You might want to edit the title, some people might be ticked off by the subject, I know I am and I would have preferred to stay away from this.

Changed.

Well, remember, it is her PC they'd be assaulting, so the person that most has to be okay with it is her. Which she appears to be...

But of course, it may not even matter if none of the other players would actually do that--would they?

According to my wife, there is the possibility. The DM has said he won't. I don't think his wife will. I'm pretty sure a few of the other players wouldn't, but am not sure. For the rest of the players, I have no idea. (It is a large group, though not all players are there every week.)

"it's supposed to be fun for everyone, not just you."Does she (and I'm quite confused as who exactly said that because the post doesn't make it clear, but it doesn't matter here) not see the inherent hypocrisy of this statement?

That (and the other quotes in the OP) was from my wife to me when I talked to her about it last night. That was after we talked to the DM and he said he wouldn't have any NPC's assaulting her PC because of the CHA 24.

I don't think she sees the hypocrisy in the statement. She has said that if this is going to bother me, maybe I should leave the game.

Oh by the way, doesn't the spell make the target sterile for a certain number of days? At least I am fairly certain I have seen such a spell, which means you could cast it on her instead of yourself and her problem would be solved!

It's a Personal range spell, so I couldn't cast it on her. After talking to the DM, she's decided to get a ring with the spell on it.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily lessen your discomfort, and it IS a game, whose intent is to be enjoyable. So, assuming you accept the above premise, you can either attempt to let go of the discomfort, or try and change some of the other players' minds. In the latter case, you could make a polite request (since it's not your own character, you can't really make a stronger demand) that maybe this aspect be downplayed or removed, because it's making you uncomfortable. Alternatively, maybe you'd prefer to sit this game out, or take on an unusual roll separate from the party (helping the DM with an antagonist, giving you a sense of separation from the PCs).

If it happens (and it may not), I've decided to calmly walk (not stalk) out of the room until my temper is back under control. Hopefully that will be enough time for the scene to resolve itself.

lytokk

2013-10-30, 10:00 AM

My thoughts on this situation revolve around keeping things in character. As she is your real world wife, on some level, you aren't going to be able to completely separate your wife from your wife's character. But the only thing I could say is to keep it in character. If one of the PC's assaults your wife's character, respond in character.

You've got 2 things going for you to keep fatal responses in character. Your character and your wife's character are involved. Secondly, as you said, the game is more of an evil bent. Both of these factors ensure that if they act "in character" your retaliation is very much "in character" And further in character, only one PC has to feel the retaliation for the rest of the characters to decide that maybe the NPCs are better targets for their affections.

tensai_oni

2013-10-30, 10:17 AM

Okay, here are my thoughts on this:

1. If this really bothers you, maybe you really shouldn't play. But see point #2.
2. Are the player characters really the kind to sexually harass each other in the game, or did the game master and your wife mean that they are free to do that, but probably won't?
3. Are you only bothered by the possible in-character pregnancy (as the picking of sterility feats/spells suggests), or by sexual harassment in general?

Kesnit

2013-10-30, 10:22 AM

You've got 2 things going for you to keep fatal responses in character. Your character and your wife's character are involved. Secondly, as you said, the game is more of an evil bent. Both of these factors ensure that if they act "in character" your retaliation is very much "in character" And further in character, only one PC has to feel the retaliation for the rest of the characters to decide that maybe the NPCs are better targets for their affections.

I did think of that. I was building a Spellfire Channeler*, and was going to go nova on any PC that assaulted my wife's PC (who was my PC's partner and Spellfire battery). Then the DM said no to the entire book, so that idea went out the window.

Of course, my other ideas for back-up PC's involve lots of Wizard and Druid levels (not on the same PC), so the revenge idea is still valid.

* I am aware that the class is weak and has problems. But the group is really low-op, so I figured I could get away with it.

2. Are the player characters really the kind to sexually harass each other in the game, or did the game master and your wife mean that they are free to do that, but probably won't?

I don't know. The DM is the kind to do that, but said he wouldn't do it in this case unless my wife's PC was really stupid. I don't know the other players well enough to know if they would.

I didn't really consider the possibility until my wife brought it up. When she did, I asked if she was being serious. She was, and she knows the other players. For that reason, I am not ruling out the possibility.

3. Are you only bothered by the possible in-character pregnancy (as the picking of sterility feats/spells suggests), or by sexual harassment in general?

Both, though mostly the sexual assault aspect. The pregnancy is a bother, as it makes the PC largely unplayable for a long while. My wife puts a lot of work into her PCs, and the idea of throwing that away because the DM decided to screw her PC over grates on me.

IRL, I'm a lawyer focusing on criminal law. I've worked with real-life victims of sexual assault. It isn't a game, and it isn't something to throw around "for fun." That is the biggest issue I'm having with it - the idea that sexual assault is just a lark to RP because "my PC is chaotic evil, so of course he'd want to have sex with the CHA 24 woman at the tavern, whether she wants to or not."

Slipperychicken

2013-10-30, 11:05 AM

1. Are you, and is everyone else at the table, 100% comfortable with including this content in your game?

2. If no, take corrective action. If yes, enjoy it.

----

IMO, sterility shouldn't cost a feat. If someone wants his PC to be sterile, I'd say just give it to him. Or if you're a stickler for the rules, just get someone to put a "curse" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm) on the PC which renders him/her sterile.

Also, gaming groups can forbid characters which they feel are inappropriate for the game. If Sir Creepy McChildMolester makes you uncomfortable, then ban it. [And if you aren't the DM, then tell the player and DM that you do not feel comfortable with such a character in the game. This should work if they're reasonable people.]

Segev

2013-10-30, 11:09 AM

Bestow Curse is one of the most fun spells in the game. }: )

Delwugor

2013-10-30, 11:51 AM

The answer for any game I am in is a 100% absolute NO!
There is no give, compromise, nor justification, excuse for any reason, and I don't care about someone's "fun" with this.

Daer

2013-10-30, 12:26 PM

If players of characters and dm is ok with it but there are some players that don't like it then maybe some sort compromise?
like play scene on private session or then just turn it for rolling dices.

Knaight

2013-10-30, 12:38 PM

I could see this being okay if everyone at the game was okay with it. However, there are a few major sticking points:
1) People might well play despite this, simply due to lack of other games, and it is the sort of thing to seriously detract from one's enjoyment.
2) While it's entirely possible that the topic is handled in a mature manner by reasonable people, the odds don't exactly seem good here. This seems liable to turn ugly, fast.
3) As per point 2, there's a serious concern of pressure to accept this being applied, which is all sorts of dubious.

Basically: In theory, this might be a workable situation. Also, in theory that random mountain lion you met hiking alone might be friendly. That doesn't mean that bailing on the situation is anything but the best course of action.

obryn

2013-10-30, 12:40 PM

Leaving aside a general point of I dunno what the heck kinda elfgames y'all are playing...

What a bunch of consenting adults all do sitting around a table with dice and cheetos is completely their business and nobody else's.

With that said, I'd just simply watch out. There's all kinds of warning signs about a terrible game here, including (but not limited to) your wife thinking it's worth a feat to prevent pregnancy from NPCs or other PCs assaulting her character because she "knows the DM."

Also, as a fellow married dude, I would be exceptionally uncool with any of those sorts of shenanigans directed at a character my wife was playing. Especially from other players at the table. It really needs to be consent from all players at the table for this kind of awfulness, not just the player whose PC would be the victim. And if the game doesn't let the two of you say, "yo, none of that!" then I'd stay far far away because no game is awesome enough to put up with that.

-O

TheStranger

2013-10-30, 12:41 PM

I think sexual assault that the target is OK with is just... sex.

In all seriousness, there's nothing wrong with a group of consenting adults doing whatever they want. I'd like to think that any IC sexual assault would be preceded by a mature discussion of how it would be handled. Obviously, it's a very sensitive topic, and nobody at the table should be exposed to it if they don't want to be. On the other hand, if nobody has a problem with it, go for it.

There isn't a right answer for all groups, although you can be fairly sure that nobody will have strenuous objections to *not* including rape in the game. Have a serious OOC talk with your group, reach a consensus, and proceed accordingly.

Sith_Happens

2013-10-30, 12:44 PM

IMO, sterility shouldn't cost a feat. If someone wants his PC to be sterile, I'd say just give it to him. Or if you're a stickler for the rules, just get someone to put a "curse" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm) on the PC which renders him/her sterile.

Depending on level, the OP's character can do it himself.

EDIT:

I think sexual assault that the target is OK with is just... sex.

The situation is "okay with OOC, presumably not okay with IC."

Fouredged Sword

2013-10-30, 12:53 PM

When a DM sits down and decides to fold a controversial concept into his or her game, it is the DM's job to ensure that everyone at the table is comfortable with the game and fully aware of the nature of the concept that is to be explored.

Is it OK to murder, torture, or otherwise assault people? No. In a DnD game, it is a concept that is commonly explored though.

As a Dm, I normaly take this to the extent that I will give a little survey before I bring a concept into the game.

Are you ok with fantasy racism? 1 = This concept will upset me and 10 = Very interested in exploring the concept.

If one player gave a 10 answer to "Are you ok with Sexual Assault" and everyone else in the group gave a 5-8 answer, then as a DM, I would be comfortable having that happen to that character.

If someone gave a 1-3 answer, I would remove that plot point for the whole group.

valadil

2013-10-30, 01:31 PM

No. I think the whole group should be okay with it. Just because player A doesn't care if his character is raped by player B doesn't mean players C-F should have to watch that. But I can't think of a reason why it's a problem if everyone agrees.

Regarding it being "what the character would do," if you're in a game with players who don't want to see characters get raped, don't play a rapist. You can play a CE character without assualting people.

TheStranger

2013-10-30, 02:15 PM

The situation is "okay with OOC, presumably not okay with IC."

I get that, but I couldn't resist the urge to make that comment. But really, plenty of people have real-life sex while pretending that it's non-consensual. It's still just sex, not sexual assault, whether that's your cup of tea or not.

Which is another way of looking at this. There's nothing inherently wrong about two people pretending whatever they want. But basic decency suggests that you don't do potentially disturbing things in front of your friends unless they're ok with it. But the reason isn't "because it's sexual assault," it's "because you don't make your friends uncomfortable." The fact that there are dice involved doesn't mean you get to squick out your friends without repercussions.

And, of course, you can decide for yourself how much imaginary (or real) extramarital sex you're comfortable with your wife having, with whom, and how. Hopefully she'll take your feelings on the matter into account.

It's not like the normal rules of social interaction don't apply just because there are dice on the table. Forget D&D for a minute - what's *really* happening is that a bunch of people are sitting around a table talking; if you need the internet to tell you how to behave in that situation... well, let's just say we can't help you.

Gavran

2013-10-30, 02:28 PM

By the most common definitions of a marriage, I'd say it's pretty far from okay for your wife to be roleplaying sex acts with other people at all. If you (or anyone else) has some kind of open-ish marriage where stuff like that is alright, okay, to each their own, but operating under the assumption that that isn't the case, I find the "is it okay in the game?" question to be of much less importance than the "why does your wife think it's okay to roleplay sex acts with others and why does she think that the solution to you not being comfortable with that is for you to leave?" one.

To the first question, what a bunch of consensual adults do with their RPGs is largely their business, and is fine. I'm very glad nobody I've ever played with would think for a second that something like that would improve our gaming, but there's likely no reasonable argument against it if everyone agrees it's cool.

To the second question, I'd be deeply troubled and suggest you have a very serious talk with your wife. I only say this because to me it seems like you are troubled but you feel like you don't have the right to be, and I want to tell you that I think you absolutely do. Of course, if I'm totally off-base with that, or if you are in an that kind open relationship, I'm afraid I won't be able to provide anything useful because desiring or accepting that kind of relationship is entirely incomprehensible to me.

valadil

2013-10-30, 02:34 PM

By the most common definitions of a marriage, I'd say it's pretty far from okay for your wife to be roleplaying sex acts with other people at all.

"roleplaying sex acts" is pretty vague and there's lots of room for interpretation there. It could be as mundane as "I bang her," "roll stamina," "I got an 8," "It wasn't very good for either of you." If that's not kosher, someone's got jealousy issues.

TheStranger

2013-10-30, 02:44 PM

roleplaying sex acts" is pretty vague and there's lots of room for interpretation there. It could be as mundane as "I bang her," "roll stamina," "I got an 8," "It wasn't very good for either of you." If that's not kosher, someone's got jealousy issues.

I could see some people being upset by that. I personally wouldn't be bothered, but I'm not going to tell anybody what they should or shouldn't expect from their significant other. Some people get upset if their partner even thinks about somebody else. Some people have no problem with looking. Some are fine with flirting. Some have open relationships. None of those are any better than the others. The important thing is that both people (or all the people, for poly relationships) are on the same page. It sounds like OP and his wife aren't, so they should probably talk it out. But it's not up to us to decide what page they should end up on.

Gavran

2013-10-30, 02:48 PM

"roleplaying sex acts" is pretty vague and there's lots of room for interpretation there. It could be as mundane as "I bang her," "roll stamina," "I got an 8," "It wasn't very good for either of you." If that's not kosher, someone's got jealousy issues.

While I freely admit that I have possessive tendencies, I think I'm as entitled to feel that way as someone else is to swing (both provided consenting partners). While the example you provide is certainly less offensive to me, the underlying problem is the motivations of the people involved. I can in no way imagine how that could add to the game, thus, the motivations are external to it and that's a problem. Especially since this game is largely filled with people the OP doesn't know and apparently with people his wife assumes will try to rape her character. If that assumption is being made about a character that hasn't even entered the game yet... it's a pretty clear statement about the people involved.

Again, I'm assuming a typical monogamous marriage. Normally I wouldn't even begin to make a post so reliant on an assumption, but many of the other posters only answered the first question, so I felt that the second question needed answered too. I know that this is an RPG forum, and most people are just trying to give RPG-related advice because of that, but honestly this is an issue about people, not an issue about RPGs.

AttilaTheGeek

2013-10-30, 03:53 PM

Isn't "consensual sexual assault" an oxymoron? If everyone involved consents, then it is, by definition, not sexual assault.

Knaight

2013-10-30, 03:58 PM

While I freely admit that I have possessive tendencies, I think I'm as entitled to feel that way as someone else is to swing (both provided consenting partners). While the example you provide is certainly less offensive to me, the underlying problem is the motivations of the people involved.

I'm going to have to take a small issue with this - the thing about possessive tendencies is that they restrict the options of the other person, which can easily have some issues. I'm not saying that your specific example does, but the same reasoning could be used for something along the lines of 'I have possessive tendencies, I think I'm as entitled to feel that way as someone else is to swing, therefore I don't let my wife have male friends at all', which is clearly a ridiculous imposition.

This is tangential to this thread however, where everything is way more blatant, with some very bright, very clear red flags.

Gavran

2013-10-30, 04:14 PM

I'm going to have to take a small issue with this - the thing about possessive tendencies is that they restrict the options of the other person, which can easily have some issues. I'm not saying that your specific example does, but the same reasoning could be used for something along the lines of 'I have possessive tendencies, I think I'm as entitled to feel that way as someone else is to swing, therefore I don't let my wife have male friends at all', which is clearly a ridiculous imposition.

This is tangential to this thread however, where everything is way more blatant, with some very bright, very clear red flags.

I didn't say I keep them completely unchecked. :P But honestly I'd say that even that could be valid, as long as you replace "I don't let my wife" with "my wife agrees to not". It's a pretty absurd extreme, but it isn't necessarily wrong. I think the extremes in either direction are probably unhealthy, but the most important thing is the balance between partners. When I'm in a relationship I have to work on my issues with jealousy and trust, but when I'm in a good relationship I'm not the only one taking them into account.

Edit: But this is of course all wildly off-topic, and I don't think we fundamentally disagree. I don't want to appear to be pushing my preferences any more than I already have, so I'll let it rest.

Themrys

2013-10-30, 04:24 PM

My take on the issue is that any player who thinks it's acceptable to sexually assault another PC is an immature jerk who should be thrown out of the game. There are some lines that should never be crossed, and sexual assault of a PC is one of them.

She argues that if a PC is Chaotic Evil (the party is mostly Neutral or Evil), "that's what their PC would do," and it would be perfectly OK. She also told me that "it's just a game," "this isn't a single-player video game where you can rant at the TV. The table is filled with other human beings," and "it's supposed to be fun for everyone, not just you."

I am going to throw this to the Playground. Am I overreacting? Is it OK for a player to act like that, if the player of the target PC and the DM are OK with it?

I'll not read the other comments, so maybe this has been asked already: Have you told her that you aren't comfortable with rape in the game, or was her "It's not just you" comment aimed at herself?

I don't think you're overreacting. Having your own player character be raped is worse, but witnessing ingame rape is not that fun, either, and it's not as if the only joy and happyness others can derive from the game is by raping player characters.
"The table is filled with other human beings" is exactly the reason why I think it should be possible to agree that some things are just not going to happen in the game.

Tanuki Tales

2013-10-30, 04:32 PM

Sith_Happens

2013-10-30, 04:37 PM

Gavran

2013-10-30, 04:41 PM

I...think I personally find some issue here with someone saying being ok with roleplayed sexual acts between two pen and paper characters as requiring an open marriage or being swingers.

Or that doing it is being in an open marriage or being swingers.

I didn't mean to equate them entirely (or at all, actually, my point was that I feel he has a reason to be upset if he isn't in that kind of relationship, nothing more), but I'd say being okay with it is pretty indicative of having leanings in that direction. There are two possibilities: you lean that way or you manage to keep the characters you play 100% separate from the people behind them. I've heard of and seen the former, never the latter.

Yeah, that's rather conflating one kind of "roleplay" with another.
The difference between roleplaying sex and sexual roleplaying being what, exactly? Physical? Sure. If the only lines you don't feel are okay to cross are physical ones, I think you haven't really considered/experienced other forms of unfaithful behavior.

Tanuki Tales

2013-10-30, 04:46 PM

I didn't mean to equate them entirely (or at all, actually, my point was that I feel he has a reason to be upset if he isn't in that kind of relationship, nothing more), but I'd say being okay with it is pretty indicative of having leanings in that direction. There are two possibilities: you lean that way or you manage to keep the characters you play 100% separate from the people behind them. I've heard of and seen the former, never the latter.

Which is anecdotal evidence. I personally just find it offensive that you feel that people can not divorce their characters from themselves and that things that happen at the table can lean towards being an infidelity.

It's alright for people to personally feel that, in their own personal view and their own personal world, that it is tantamount to this and to not do these things. But it is not alright to make blanket judgements like that and label those who don't share such feelings as not being part of a relationship type that doesn't fit your exact definition.

Edit:

And it also honestly smells of lack of comfort with sexuality as a whole to me, though that is an issue in today's society, as metropolitan as it claims to be.

JusticeZero

2013-10-30, 04:52 PM

I don't think that that material is acceptable at a table at all. You have a high chance of stomping on someones trauma, and they are likely to not say anything like "Hey, it took me a week of nightmares before I could get to feeling halfway good about myself the last time someone brought this up, you are proposing something even more upsetting, and I am not about to make things worse by saying something and singling myself out as a target to be bullied with this every day. "

GolemsVoice

2013-10-30, 05:03 PM

If they're a group who discuss problematic areas, it's very unlikely that anybody who expresses problems will be bullied for that. They would have to be some colossal jerks.

It is, however, possible that a trauma survivor doesn't want to speak about it and therefore suffers silently when such things appear ingame.

Still, I think that OK in a game is whatever people at the table consent on being OK.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-10-30, 05:04 PM

I am going to throw this to the Playground. Am I overreacting? Is it OK for a player to act like that, if the player of the target PC and the DM are OK with it?

Well, it's an evil game.

How do you feel about PCs murdering each other?

How do you feel about a player describing in vivid, gory detail what he does in the act of murdering the PC, and what he does to the body afterwards?

I'd not be ok with either of those, and actively avoid games where that sort of stuff is allowed (I stick to "evil people can work together towards common goals" type of evil games). Ditto for sexual assault of PCs by other PCs. Neither is ever "necessary" and both I find repugnant, violating, and a sure-fire way to lead to players arguing/fighting and being vindictive towards each other.

If you are ok with that stuff, that's cool. But maybe you should ask yourself why you're drawing such an odd line in the sand about sexual assault of other PCs, then.

Gavran

2013-10-30, 05:09 PM

Anecdotal evidence isn't irrelevant, it's just secondary to empirical evidence. I have anecdotal evidence and have seen no empirical evidence, I can only evaluate what I have. My anecdotal evidence also includes empirical evidence about the way the human mind works and how people generally have to self-insert and empathize in order to experience things. That said I'm sorry if I've offended you, and it's fine if you want to strive towards a goal that I view as impossible in your RPGing.

My point here has been only thus: it is more likely that OP is in a traditional monogamous relationship -> it is more likely that players relate in some ways to their PCs -> if the above are true and his wife wants to play in a game with this behavior and does not respect his objections, they could probably benefit from an open discussion of this.

As an aside, I'd appreciate if you didn't make assumptions about my sexuality or comfort with it just because my views are different from yours.

JusticeZero

2013-10-30, 05:13 PM

Not only is it not OK, but you don't need to give a reason to object. You don't need to explain or justify your objection.

Knaight

2013-10-30, 05:14 PM

If you are ok with that stuff, that's cool. But maybe you should ask yourself why you're drawing such an odd line in the sand about sexual assault of other PCs, then.

I can say, with certainty, that nobody I play with has ever been murdered. Nobody I will play with will have been murdered when I play with them. Death is an impediment to playing RPGs. Moreover, it's a safe assumption that nobody I've played with has directly known anyone murdered - it could be wrong, but the murder rate is low enough that it probably isn't.

Sexual assault is a completely different matter here. Given societal prevalence, the odds aren't even that good that nobody in whatever group someone is currently in hasn't been sexually assaulted. Everyone in there almost certainly knows someone who has been, and probably knows that they know someone who has been - quite possibly multiple people.

Which brings me back to my previous point - it could possibly be handled well, given the right people. It also has the potential to blow up horribly, and as such plenty of the people willing to touch the subject in games do so simply because they don't care if it does blow up horribly, which is where the red flags start coming in.

Tanuki Tales

2013-10-30, 05:15 PM

Sith_Happens

2013-10-30, 05:17 PM

The difference between roleplaying sex and sexual roleplaying being what, exactly?

The former is approximately akin to an actor filming a sex scene in a movie/TV show. Make that substitution, and do you see any more or less of a difference?

obryn

2013-10-30, 05:20 PM

And it also honestly smells of lack of comfort with sexuality as a whole to me, though that is an issue in today's society, as metropolitan as it claims to be.
Bull.

"I am not comfortable if someone roleplays raping my or my (wife/husband/partner's) character" is indicative of nothing of the sort. It's okay to be skeeved out by roleplaying sexual assault in general, and it's certainly okay when it's directed rather personally.

-O

Knaight

2013-10-30, 05:23 PM

Bull.

"I am not comfortable if someone roleplays raping my or my (wife/husband/partner's) character" is indicative of nothing of the sort. It's okay to be skeeved out by roleplaying sexual assault in general, and it's certainly okay when it's directed rather personally.

-O

The comment was on the tangent of someone's partner playing a character who had any sex at all, without the context of horrific violence.

Tanuki Tales

2013-10-30, 05:28 PM

Bull.

"I am not comfortable if someone roleplays raping my or my (wife/husband/partner's) character" is indicative of nothing of the sort. It's okay to be skeeved out by roleplaying sexual assault in general, and it's certainly okay when it's directed rather personally.

-O

That...is not what I was talking about at all. The conversation you were quoting has nothing to really do with the OP, but about sexual roleplaying at the table in general.

Gavran

2013-10-30, 05:40 PM

Then provide this empirical evidence and please don't act like your stance is more correct than mine. Not making assumptions about my preference isn't conditional on anything, though me continuing to discuss this with you is conditional on you agreeing not to do that. It's pointless for me to discuss with you if you're going to treat my words as anything other than they are, and trying to place me into a neat little boxed category that you have arguments prepared for is a waste of our time. (Doubly so when you're completely wrong in your assumptions. Monogamy and heterosexuality are the only traditional things about my sexuality, really.)

As for the evidence, it's a conclusion I've drawn from a number of studies about what draws people into storytelling, how people empathize better with small groups than large ones, how people tend to group things as either "like me" or "outsiders." I suggest you dig up that thread from earlier about whether or not you can tell things about someone based on how they roleplay if you don't want to google (not that I read that whole thread). The answer is "Yes" with an implied "It's complicated" because nothing about psychology isn't.

The former is approximately akin to an actor filming a sex scene in a movie/TV show. Make that substitution, and do you see any more or less of a difference? Except that an actor is:

1) Doing their job. (Has very clear and reasonable motivations.)

2) Not doing anything remotely romantic or intimate.

3) Doing it with another professional actor, not their friend who may have actual feelings for them.

4) Is not the one making the decisions about what their character does.

5) Should still not do it if it makes their partner uncomfortable.

Not all of those differences necessarily apply in every case, but I think enough do in most cases to back up what I've said. Let me present to you a hypothetical counter example: I'm your spouse's friend, but you and I don't have very much of a relationship. Your spouse and I co-write erotic fiction about ourselves as a hobby. Do you not have any problem with this? Do you think it is unreasonable for a person in a monogamous relationship to?

Starmage21

2013-10-30, 05:42 PM

I agree with a couple of other posters in this thread:

Adult themed games = OK. So long as the people at your table are OK with it and can handle it in an adult fashion, AWESOME!

That is really all that matters!

Problem is, most of the time people forget how to be grown ups that can talk about anything without getting butthurt, and they forget how to talk about things that bother them without forgetting that not real = no reason to get butthurt.
Any time there is this kind of butthurt, otherwise known as childish outrage, you cannot have an adult kind of game.

Tanuki Tales

2013-10-30, 05:46 PM

Not making assumptions about my preference isn't conditional on anything, though me continuing to discuss this with you is conditional on you agreeing not to do that. It's pointless for me to discuss with you if you're going to treat my words as anything other than they are, and trying to place me into a neat little boxed category that you have arguments prepared for is a waste of our time. (Doubly so when you're completely wrong in your assumptions. Monogamy and heterosexuality are the only traditional things about my sexuality, really.)

As for the evidence, it's a conclusion I've drawn from a number of studies about what draws people into storytelling, how people empathize better with small groups than large ones, how people tend to group things as either "like me" or "outsiders." I suggest you dig up that thread from earlier about whether or not you can tell things about someone based on how they roleplay if you don't want to google (not that I read that whole thread). The answer is "Yes" with an implied "It's complicated" because nothing about psychology isn't.

So your evidence is not actually empirical, it's just more anecdotal evidence (since you're only giving your opinions and not linking to actual studies) and thus your defining of what is or isn't proper monogamous behavior is no more a correct assessment of the dynamics of relationships than my assessment of what can be proper monogamous behavior.

Gotcha. That's all I needed to hear. :smallsmile:

Starmage21

2013-10-30, 05:55 PM

So your evidence is not actually empirical, it's just more anecdotal evidence (since you're only giving your opinions and not linking to actual studies) and thus your defining of what is or isn't proper monogamous behavior is no more a correct assessment of the dynamics of relationships than my assessment of what can be proper monogamous behavior.

Gotcha. That's all I needed to hear. :smallsmile:

Nothing about psychology is empirical. the only empirical data you get from psychology is statistical analysis. Every person is iherently different in small and subtle ways. The only way we can decide what is "normal" is by counting the number of similar anecdotes and deriving what falls within the ~95% that counts for 2 standard deviations from the average :D

Gavran

2013-10-30, 05:57 PM

So your evidence is not actually empirical, it's just more anecdotal evidence (since you're only giving your opinions and not linking to actual studies) and thus your defining of what is or isn't proper monogamous behavior is no more a correct assessment of the dynamics of relationships than my assessment of what can be proper monogamous behavior.

Gotcha. That's all I needed to hear. :smallsmile:
You refusing to do your own research and challenge your preconceptions only reinforces my point, really. You find my argument so un-relatable because of assumptions you've made about me that you're completely rejecting the chance to give it an honest evaluation. Which, coincidentally, is the reason I didn't waste my time gathering links for you - it was obvious you'd call them poisoned by association and disregard them outright. I'll ignore the irony of you not even pretending to have evidence - after all - there are people who live their lives without empathy. They're called sociopaths.

Tanuki Tales

2013-10-30, 05:59 PM

You refusing to do your own research and challenge your preconceptions only reinforces my point, really. You find my argument so un-relatable because of assumptions you've made about me that you're completely rejecting the chance to give it an honest evaluation. Which, coincidentally, is the reason I didn't waste my time gathering links for you - it was obvious you'd call them poisoned by association and disregard them outright. I'll ignore the irony of you not even pretending to have evidence - after all - there are people who live their lives without empathy. They're called sociopaths.

So, you claim to have empirical evidence, refuse to provide it and then expect people to do their own research to back up your stance.

I think we're done here.

Gavran

2013-10-30, 06:03 PM

So, you claim to have empirical evidence, refuse to provide it and then expect people to do their own research to back up your stance.

I think we're done here.

Quite done, sir. Empathy is the basis for all human interaction. If you can't see that, I'd get better results trying to explain it to my dog.

Tanuki Tales

2013-10-30, 06:12 PM

Quite done, sir. Empathy is the basis for all human interaction. If you can't see that, I'd get better results trying to explain it to my dog.

And this would be changing the goal posts.

The discussion was about whether or not, empirically, monogamous couples are incapable of divorcing the actions of their characters from their own feelings. But now you're talking about empathy.

Yeah, I don't believe we can discuss this. Especially since I'm the only one who hasn't resorted to Ad Hominem remarks.

Edit:

And yes, I consider being called less intelligent and capable of conversation than a domesticated animal a personal attack.

Mr Beer

2013-10-30, 06:29 PM

Game wise, yeah that's fine.

My problem with this here scenario would be 100% with my wife and that would get settled out of game.

Grim Portent

2013-10-30, 06:45 PM

To be quite frank sexual assault to me speaks of a rather incompetent portrayal of CE, but that's irrelevant. What matters is if you want to handle this in or out of game.

If you don't want to deal with it in game then discuss with the players the issue and politely request that they not touch upon the topic. If they say yes then all well and good. If they don't then you should either not play or spend a while discussing it with your wife.

If you are willing to work with the concept in game then you could always pursue an avenue of 'Evil is Vindictive'. In my experience players who can roleplay evil well are usually fine with their character getting karmic backlash so you can enact whatever revenge schemes in character that you feel justified.

I personally would kill a character who tried to engage in such activity on the grounds of 'Even we should have standards.'

Callin

2013-10-30, 06:46 PM

That (and the other quotes in the OP) was from my wife to me when I talked to her about it last night. That was after we talked to the DM and he said he wouldn't have any NPC's assaulting her PC because of the CHA 24.

I don't think she sees the hypocrisy in the statement. She has said that if this is going to bother me, maybe I should leave the game.

Yes you and her do not see eye to eye on this and THAT is what needs to be resolved. Not the fact of whether its ok to do in a RPG (it is in my opinion just like any other Role Play Outlet) but the fact that your wife is not respecting your feelings on this.

The group is evidently not your cup of tea. I have played with groups like this and it can be very very fun but everyone was on the same page. (Heck my first game of White Wolf was at my Bosses house and my Bro was "Cant rape the willing" assaulted by her)

My 2cents, talk with the wife more and dont accept "You should leave the game" as an answer.

Cerlis

2013-10-30, 06:50 PM

I am putting this in the general RPG section, even though this is about a 3.5 game, because the general idea could relate to any RPG.

My wife and I recently joined (or in her case, re-joined) a 3.5 game. I've known the DM and his wife (who also plays) for several years. I don't know the other players. My wife played with the group for a few years before we met, but quit gaming with them. (That was also before she and I met, so I had nothing to do with it.) The DM allows just about any 3.5 book, as well as Star Wars and d20 Modern. (Don't ask. It makes sense in context.) This includes 3rd party books.

My wife really likes one of the classes in Book of Erotic Fantasy, so made one of her back-up characters that class. (The game is known to eat PCs for breakfast, so having back-ups is recommended.) Since she knew the DM's style, and she built completely out of that book, she took the feat Sterile so her PC could not get pregnant. Her next PC is a Warlock, with a template and PrC out of that same book. While she was building, she wondered to me if she should take that same feat on this PC. (The Warlock has a CHA of 24 at ECL 8.) I said since she was feat starved, and I was building a WIZ who was supposed to be partnered with hers, I'd just take the spell that makes me sterile for 1 day/CL, and keep casting it on myself.
"That works for you, but what about the other PCs, or NPCs," she replied. We talked to the DM about it, and he said he would not send NPC's to assault her, but would not stop any PC's.

My take on the issue is that any player who thinks it's acceptable to sexually assault another PC is an immature jerk who should be thrown out of the game. There are some lines that should never be crossed, and sexual assault of a PC is one of them.

She argues that if a PC is Chaotic Evil (the party is mostly Neutral or Evil), "that's what their PC would do," and it would be perfectly OK. She also told me that "it's just a game," "this isn't a single-player video game where you can rant at the TV. The table is filled with other human beings," and "it's supposed to be fun for everyone, not just you."

I am going to throw this to the Playground. Am I overreacting? Is it OK for a player to act like that, if the player of the target PC and the DM are OK with it?

"that's what their PC MIGHT do,"

Xykon wouldnt do it, that is for sure.

JusticeZero

2013-10-30, 07:15 PM

If I have reason to be bothered, then the depiction is itself "real" and a valid objection. You are not owed an explanation. It is not a matter of "butthurt".

Benthesquid

2013-10-30, 07:58 PM

Warning: The post below will include discussion of sexual assault, rape, and consensual sex in various forms, and how they might relate to roleplaying games. More or less a given, given the topic, but just putting that out there.

Less Serious Disclaimer:
Benthesquid is not a certified Relationships Expert, and all advice should be taken with a hefty grain of salt. Benthesquid disavows any responsibility for the results of following this advice, included but not limited to legal difficulties; emotional hardship; bodily harm, grievous or otherwise; moral degradation; immoral degradation; spiritual lessening; economic penalties; interpersonal awkwardness; IRS audits and/or possession by one or more Great Old Ones.

Now that that's out of the way, as I see it, there are two connected but distinct issues here.

1) What is appropriate to happen in a D&D game generally.

Here I'd like to apply the SSC rule- that is to say, anything is okay, as long as it is safe, sane, and consensual. Interpretations of what exactly each of those mean, but here's how I read it.

Safe: Not likely to result in significant physical harm. Not normally an issue in D&D. Maybe if you're LARPing?

Sane: Not likely to result in significant mental or emotional harm. This one is a lot harder to judge, but generally I'd let people decide for themselves. If they say that they can handle something, and I don't have any specific reason to believe otherwise, I'll take their word for it. This ties into the third part as well.

Consensual: What this means is that all participants (for our purposes, the players and GM) have to know and agree to what's going to happen. This is where people get the chance to opt out if they think that they're likely to be traumatized, or if they simply don't wish to participate. They also have to be able to consent freely, and without any coercion.

Now, does your DM's game meet these requirements? Well, it looks as though he's being upfront about the game's likely contents- it will involve sex, and while he will not go out of his way to include sexual assault, he does acknowledge that there is a possibility of that, depending on the choices the player's make. Your decision now is whether you consent to play in a game where that is the case. If not, you can talk to the DM- depending on how important it is to him that players have the option to explore acts of sexual assault within the game, he may be willing to alter these parameters. Or he may not, in which case you have the option to remove yourself from the game.

So I don't think, as far as that goes, the DM is doing anything wrong. He's not springing sexual assault on people in the game without warning, and you have the opportunity to opt out at any time if you so choose.

2) Your relationship with your wife.

This is something that I can't tell you that much about. I'm not you. I'm not your wife. I'm not your sassy best friend whom you both tell everything about your relationship (if you've got one of these, I'd ask them for some insight!) But this is the internet, and you've asked for advice, so I'll have a go.

It sounds like your wife is okay playing a character which may or may not be assaulted by other characters. She's consenting. So if you have a problem with the situation, she's the one you need to talk to. And I can't stress that enough. Talk to her. Communicate. Explain what your problem with the situation is. Listen to her when she explains her stance on it.

Again, I don't know you or your wife, but it sounds like the two of you might have different ideas as to what's permissible within the bounds of your relationship. This is something you really need to work out between the two of you- and the first step to doing that is to define exactly what each of you think those bounds are.

GoblinArchmage

2013-10-30, 08:09 PM

I would be inclined to say that sexual assault is not appropriate for the typical roleplaying session. What most people don't understand, is that a disturbingly high percentage (I don't know the number off the top of my head) of people are victims of sexual violence, and it's highly possible that a member of your group has gone through something that would qualify. One could argue that the person could just speak up about it to avoid conflict, but that really isn't fair. A victim of sexual assault should not have an obligation to explain herself or himself to everyone else.

In addition, the percentage of people who have commited sexual violence on others is also disturbingly high, and an in character rape could potentially encourage such a person to feel that it is no big deal.

Edit: Also, you have already established that you are uncomfortable with this. If any of the players, regardless of whether or not their characters are involved in a problematic situation, feel uncomfortable about it, then that is reason enough to not do it.

valadil

2013-10-30, 08:57 PM

I would be inclined to say that sexual assault is not appropriate for the typical roleplaying session. What most people don't understand, is that a disturbingly high percentage (I don't know the number off the top of my head) of people are victims of sexual violence, and it's highly possible that a member of your group has gone through something that would qualify. One could argue that the person could just speak up about it to avoid conflict, but that really isn't fair. A victim of sexual assault should not have an obligation to explain herself or himself to everyone else.

I've heard 1 in 4 women. That equates to 1 in 8 people, if you ignore the male victims (which you shouldn't!).

Yes, sexual assault is likely to be triggery for these people. That doesn't mean it's fine for 7 in 8 people either. I wouldn't want to see it in a game I'm playing in. I'm usually down with adding some grit to fantasy, but that's taking it farther than I enjoy.

Sith_Happens

2013-10-30, 09:15 PM

Except that an actor is:

1) Doing their job. (Has very clear and reasonable motivations.)

2) Not doing anything remotely romantic or intimate.

3) Doing it with another professional actor, not their friend who may have actual feelings for them.

4) Is not the one making the decisions about what their character does.

5) Should still not do it if it makes their partner uncomfortable.

Not all of those differences necessarily apply in every case, but I think enough do in most cases to back up what I've said.[/QUOTE]

Hm, point. The degree of person/character separation is definitely a good bit higher.

Let me present to you a hypothetical counter example: I'm your spouse's friend, but you and I don't have very much of a relationship. Your spouse and I co-write erotic fiction about ourselves as a hobby. Do you not have any problem with this? Do you think it is unreasonable for a person in a monogamous relationship to?

A self-insert generally implies a much lesser degree of person/character separation, which in turn makes it more problematic than a typical RPG situation (similarly, an RPG situation in which one or both characters are self-inserts would be even more problematic than that).

Anyways, the point of my question was mainly to try and feel out where exactly you draw the line. It's rather easier to discuss things when you actually know where everyone is coming from.

tomandtish

2013-10-30, 09:32 PM

Part of what confused me when I first saw this thread was the title.

"Sexual assault if the target is OK with it?" made it sound like it was going to be a discussion on "Is it really rape if the victim is willing".

What we actually have is "Is it OK for a PC to be sexually assaulted if the player is OK with it?" which is certainly a different conversation.

Having said that, Benthesquid's advice seems pretty spot on to me. I like his description of SSC and use those basic rules (although I never specifically named it). I would offer one thought for clarification:

"Consensual: What this means is that all participants (for our purposes, the players and GM) have to know and agree to what's going to happen". I would add that this must be among the players themselves, as well as between players and GM. There's a big difference between the DM saying he'll allow certain behavior and players planning on actually having their characters engage in the behavior, and when dealing with topics like this it is good to all be on the same page. If one of the players is planning on playing a rapist, that should be discussed with other players, not just the DM. At the very least, the DM needs to make it clear that this is something that one of the other players has expressed interest in exploring (man, that just sounds wrong).

SassyQuatch

2013-10-30, 09:50 PM

I'm honestly OK with it, either as a player or as a DM so long as it is roleplayed accurately, such as it affecting the various characters in appropriate ways.

What bothered me the most (if I read later comments correctly) is that the DM is supposedly OK with RPing the assault, but not with the logical consequences such as friction in the group or more especially PvP. If there were legitimate reasons brought up in game so as to possibly convince some PCs that the time to deal with the crime is not now it wouldn't seem so bad, but it almost looks like saying "well, the rape is fine, but getting violent is just uncivilized" (snooty British voice implied).

Sith_Happens

2013-10-30, 10:56 PM

Killer Angel

2013-10-31, 07:11 AM

When a group is exploring a whole fantasy universe, a player should have more interesting things to do, than sexual assaults...

edit: otherwise, you could as well play fatal. :smallamused:

Kesnit

2013-10-31, 08:50 AM

I changed the subject again to make it clearer what the thread is about.

I got behind in answering posts, so will try to recap and hopefully hit everything.

I talked to my wife last night about this, once both of us were calmed down and feeling better. So now I have a better perspective on what her thinking was. First, she doesn't think any of the other PCs will actually sexually assault her CHA 24 Warlock. (She thinks I was overreacting, given that it may not happen.) Second (and more importantly), she was a bit resentful that I seemed to be attacking her only gaming outlet and her friends.

Regarding the portrayals of sex... I actually don't have a problem with my wife's PC being sexual with NPCs. (She's playing a rather promiscuous Bard at the moment.) She's not likely to RP being sexual with another PC (unless it's my PC), though that wouldn't bother me unless they went overboard in the RP. In real life, we are both adamantly monogamous by nature. My only issue was the chance of sexual assault, not consensual sex.

Lamech

2013-10-31, 09:01 AM

you could as well play fatal. :smallamused:
You could also stab your eyes out!

Kalmageddon

2013-10-31, 12:44 PM

You could also stab your eyes out!

I've heard eating glass shards is really fun too!

Jay R

2013-10-31, 05:12 PM

Some things shouldn't happen unless everyone at the table is comfortable with it. This is one.

And it does not matter why one person is upset with it. More importantly, nobody has to give reasons. There may be good reasons that are nobody else's business.

I play in one game in which there will be no giant spiders. And no - it doesn't matter one iota whether the character of the player with the phobia is the one attacked.

Frozen_Feet

2013-10-31, 07:07 PM

I can say, with certainty, that nobody I play with has ever been murdered. Nobody I will play with will have been murdered when I play with them. Death is an impediment to playing RPGs. Moreover, it's a safe assumption that nobody I've played with has directly known anyone murdered - it could be wrong, but the murder rate is low enough that it probably isn't.

Sexual assault is a completely different matter here. Given societal prevalence, the odds aren't even that good that nobody in whatever group someone is currently in hasn't been sexually assaulted. Everyone in there almost certainly knows someone who has been, and probably knows that they know someone who has been - quite possibly multiple people.

Which brings me back to my previous point - it could possibly be handled well, given the right people. It also has the potential to blow up horribly, and as such plenty of the people willing to touch the subject in games do so simply because they don't care if it does blow up horribly, which is where the red flags start coming in.

Bull. I see sexual assault held as some special sort of evil in regards to RPGs, but it really isn't. Those other traumatizing things, including murder, manslaughter etc., are not as uncommon as you imply either.

RPGs are games.They're fantasy. No real creatures are getting hurt. If other players are OK with it, and your objection is "But a real victim might get offended by it!", get over it already. A mental scenario between a small group of inviduals doesn't magically turn into overarching social narrative that stomps on those absent.

Besides, as far as I recall psychology, ability to discuss your traumas casually is a sign of recovery. If it's something you might read from your morning newspaper (and sexual assault is), it's better to get used to talking about it, than hushing it up.

Disclaimer: the person writing this uses black humor as a coping mechanism. If some bad thing that has happened to him or his family makes its way to a game, he will just take the opportunity to discuss and mock it. These might not include sexual assault, but do include suicide and murder.

valadil

2013-10-31, 07:36 PM

And it does not matter why one person is upset with it. More importantly, nobody has to give reasons. There may be good reasons that are nobody else's business.

True fact. If this came up in one of my games, I'd have the players throw votes into a hat anonymously. If any votes come up anti-rape, then rape is off the table. No justification, and no peer pressure.

Besides, as far as I recall psychology, ability to discuss your traumas casually is a sign of recovery. If it's something you might read from your morning newspaper (and sexual assault is), it's better to get used to talking about it, than hushing it up.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you get to impose therapy time on another player.

Slipperychicken

2013-10-31, 07:56 PM

Some Most things shouldn't happen unless everyone at the table is comfortable with it. This is one.

Fixed that for 'ya.

Jayabalard

2013-10-31, 08:19 PM

I am going to throw this to the Playground. Am I overreacting? Is it OK for a player to act like that, if the player of the target PC and the DM are OK with it?It's ok for a player to act like that, if EVERYONE a the table is ok with it. Not just the player and DM

Frozen_Feet

2013-10-31, 08:26 PM

Valadil, I'm not talking about anything close to therapy here. I'm talking of being able to stand a mention of subject. Inclusion of an awkward topic doesn't require you to disclose your full personal history, but neither should it require throwing a hissyfit or breaking down in tears.

And people need to stop throwing the word "comfort" around like its magical justification button for exclusion of anything. Point of fact, every single person has to put up with some level of discomfort in day-to-day interactions. It's the same thing as with the word "fun" - not everything can be fun all the time, and same goes for comfort. There are times when it makes no sense whatsoever to sacrifice expression for them. Often, one person's fun and comfort must give so others can have theirs.

It's a matter of degree and tresholds. Zero tolerance may sound nice, but can cause more trouble than it's worth. Especially since we are talking of imaginary content, not physical actions.

Benthesquid

2013-10-31, 08:58 PM

I'm going to try not to go off on a rant about trigger warnings and rape culture because these forums aren't necessarily the place for that, but...

The issue with including rape in a game is that A) there are a lot of rape victims, and B) they way too frequently have to deal with cultural narratives that tell them that what happened to them was their fault and/or that their worth as an individual is lessened by it.

Some may choose to deal with this by black humor, and be perfectly okay if it comes up in the course of a game. Some really won't. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a real thing.

So, like I said, be up front about it, discuss it, and make it clear from the get-go that your game may include those elements.

TL:DR- It's the responsibility of the GM to make it clear what potentially difficult subjects his or her game may include, it is the responsibility of the players to decide whether they wish to play in a game with those elements.

Frozen_Feet

2013-10-31, 09:11 PM

Benthesquid

2013-10-31, 09:23 PM

Your post ignores the possibility of a player introducing awkward content, as was the situation described in the OP. Let's not pretend a GM is the only party at the table responsible for a game's content, and let's not pretend it's sensible or even possible to run a full disclosure of what a game "might-but-won't-necessarily" include. Something like "PG13" or "Not recommended for elderly, children, infirm, politically correct or anyone else for that matter" should suffice.

Heck, if I'm running Lamentations of the Flame Princess, that should tell everyone that everything horrifying ever is on the table. :smalltongue:

The GM is by and large, in charge of determining what sort of game is being run, though. So yes, it is incumbent on players to stick by the guidelines the GM sets, but it is the GM's job to set those guidelines.

And I don't give a **** about "awkward" content. I'm talking about content that has a high possibility of being a trauma trigger for someone in the group. Specifically, I'm talking about rape, a traumatic event that happens to an unacceptably high percentage of women, and which comes laden with a disgusting helping of victim blaming and shame.

Frozen_Feet

2013-10-31, 10:22 PM

I use the word awkward as shorthand for that (and more), since writing it out every time gets old real fast.:smalltongue:

More topically, how do you suppose to enforce such guidelines?

GoblinArchmage

2013-10-31, 10:51 PM

I have a question: why would any well adjusted and mature adult want to roleplay a rapist?

Valadil, I'm not talking about anything close to therapy here. I'm talking of being able to stand a mention of subject. Inclusion of an awkward topic doesn't require you to disclose your full personal history, but neither should it require throwing a hissyfit or breaking down in tears.

And people need to stop throwing the word "comfort" around like its magical justification button for exclusion of anything. Point of fact, every single person has to put up with some level of discomfort in day-to-day interactions. It's the same thing as with the word "fun" - not everything can be fun all the time, and same goes for comfort. There are times when it makes no sense whatsoever to sacrifice expression for them. Often, one person's fun and comfort must give so others can have theirs.

It's a matter of degree and tresholds. Zero tolerance may sound nice, but can cause more trouble than it's worth. Especially since we are talking of imaginary content, not physical actions.

That's all well and good for a standard work of art, such as a novel or a film, but we are talking about a game here. It's not much of a game if someone isn't having any fun.

Frozen_Feet

2013-11-01, 12:16 AM

Why does anyone well-adjusted play an anti-social murderhobo who mutilates others of his kind of fun and profit?

Look up videogame cruelty and rape fantasies. A lot of people harbor perverted thoughts they have never acted upon (and will never act upon) in real life, but will replicate in a virtual environment in heartbeat. Because they know it is not real and has no real consequences. It's a way to vent those dark desires.

As far as fun goes: do you stop reading a book if single chapter is boring? Do you stop watching a movie because of one disgusting scene? Stop playing a videogame due to one badly designed level? Assuming these works have otherwise been enjoyable?

If 10 minutes of a 4 hour game are spent squirming in your seat, does that inevitably ruin the whole game? No, it does not. The idea that a game must be all the fun, all the time, for all the participants, is unrealistic. There are a lot of other things to be done between excluding a topic and quitting the game.

AMFV

2013-11-01, 12:30 AM

Why does anyone well-adjusted play an anti-social murderhobo who mutilates others of his kind of fun and profit?

I'm not quite sure where this particular stereotype comes from, but I've never seen it in play, not once, not even in games that are essentially hack and slash.

Look up videogame cruelty and rape fantasies. A lot of people harbor perverted thoughts they have never acted upon (and will never act upon) in real life, but will replicate in a virtual environment in heartbeat. Because they know it is not real and has no real consequences. It's a way to vent those dark desires.

The problem is that this is not venting the dark desires in private in a video game setting or with another consenting person. If one party is not consenting to this content then it is a problem. Which could even be tantamount to sexual harassment in and of itself.

As far as fun goes: do you stop reading a book if single chapter is boring? Do you stop watching a movie because of one disgusting scene? Stop playing a videogame due to one badly designed level? Assuming these works have otherwise been enjoyable?

I'm not squeamish, I was a Marine, I make terrible jokes all the time, but I have stopped reading books because they contained rape scenes. First off because it's a typical indication of other problems that will surface later and secondly because I don't want to deal with it and I shouldn't have to.

If 10 minutes of a 4 hour game are spent squirming in your seat, does that inevitably ruin the whole game? No, it does not. The idea that a game must be all the fun, all the time, for all the participants, is unrealistic. There are a lot of other things to be done between excluding a topic and quitting the game.

If my first response would be to seriously try to figure out if I would want to physically hurt that person, even with it just being a game, then that's a problem. (I probably wouldn't) But this is not a small issue, it's not, putting a spider into a game where somebody has mild arachnophobia. This is tantamount to making abortion or real world religion present in a fantasy game, and it's completely fine to have issues with that.

And we also have majority rules here, if one person has a rape fantasy they want to act out, and the DM is okay with it, but not really for it. Then how many people have to be uncomfortable before it is not okay. I imagine most people would be, and to be fair, if people continued to roleplay a rape scene after any participant had expressed, that would be the end of the game for me, flat out, I would leave, period. I don't think I'd be wrong to do so.

Gamgee

2013-11-01, 12:40 AM

If everyone, and I do mean everyone at the table agrees with it. If anyone will have a problem with it then no. It's a very touchy subject and the simple consent of two people in larger group wouldn't be enough to let something like that fly.

Everyone needs to be okay with it. That's about my opinion on the matter.

GoblinArchmage

2013-11-01, 01:45 AM

As far as fun goes: do you stop reading a book if single chapter is boring? Do you stop watching a movie because of one disgusting scene? Stop playing a videogame due to one badly designed level? Assuming these works have otherwise been enjoyable?

If 10 minutes of a 4 hour game are spent squirming in your seat, does that inevitably ruin the whole game? No, it does not. The idea that a game must be all the fun, all the time, for all the participants, is unrealistic. There are a lot of other things to be done between excluding a topic and quitting the game.

What if the person who happens to be squirming in her or his seat for ten minutes happens to be a rape survivor who has yet to come to terms with their trauma? Is that really a fair situation to put them in? We're not talking about a book, or a movie, or even a video game, where this scene could be necessary to fulfill some stylistic or artistic purpose. We're talking about a cooperative game where people generally do things in a casual manner, and casually roleplaying a rape, when it is possible that someone who is present happense to be a rape survivor, is not cool. If you have a bunch of people expressly getting together for that reason because they are all into that, then fine, but that does not describe the average RPG session.

Evandar

2013-11-01, 04:39 AM

My opinion here is dead simple and seems solid to me: if anyone at the table (anyone, including PCs who aren't even involved in the drama) are uncomfortable with a serious issue like this, don't do it.

If everyone is okay with it, then that's that. There's no shame in being uncomfortable with it and making that clear. Everyone has their limits and it is totally within their rights to assert them.

(I basically agree with everything Segev said on the first page.)

GolemsVoice

2013-11-01, 05:56 AM

What if the person who happens to be squirming in her or his seat for ten minutes happens to be a rape survivor who has yet to come to terms with their trauma? Is that really a fair situation to put them in? We're not talking about a book, or a movie, or even a video game, where this scene could be necessary to fulfill some stylistic or artistic purpose. We're talking about a cooperative game where people generally do things in a casual manner, and casually roleplaying a rape, when it is possible that someone who is present happense to be a rape survivor, is not cool. If you have a bunch of people expressly getting together for that reason because they are all into that, then fine, but that does not describe the average RPG session.

The creation process of those things is also something the reader/viewer has no influence on. The writer can't ask his potential readership if they would be comfortable with a scene he wants to write, but in a roleplaying group, you can do that. And should. While you probably shouldn't stop the game because of every minor thing that you don't agree with, this is not such a situation.

Frozen_Feet

2013-11-01, 06:43 AM

I'm not quite sure where this particular stereotype comes from, but I've never seen it in play, not once, not even in games that are essentially hack and slash.

Two questions: 1) Did you start RPGs as an adult and 2) do you primarily play with other adults who are already experienced roleplayers?

Because the stereotype arises primarily from players who are young, new, or both. It's common enough that you're the first person in this hobby who has expressed any sort of confusion regarding this matter in my records.

While pen-and-paper RPGs are niche enough that there probably isn't a good statistical study on, say, D&D in particular, the phenomenom exists across the spectrum of games and you can find ludologist studies on it based on videogames and children's game both.

It's an interesting topic in its own right, so if you want to discuss it in more depth you might want to start a new thread for it. :smallsmile:

For informal treatise on the subject, TV tropes has an illustrative list of examples. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VideoGameCrueltyPotential)

The problem is that this is not venting the dark desires in private in a video game setting or with another consenting person. If one party is not consenting to this content then it is a problem. Which could even be tantamount to sexual harassment in and of itself.

If there are two or three players who want to play this scene and another two or three don't, what prevents the latter group from taking a moment to eat nachos while the others play it out? (Also, see below.)

But this is not a small issue, it's not, putting a spider into a game where somebody has mild arachnophobia. This is tantamount to making abortion or real world religion present in a fantasy game, and it's completely fine to have issues with that.

Oh, I agree it's completely fine to have issues with abortion or whatever religion... they also happen to be frequent topics of both public and casual discussion here, so strongly taking offense to their presence in a game is completely absurd.

As far as your arachnophobia example goes, I actually had an arachnophobe attend my game, and the random encounter roll indicated a spider. She visibly bleached at the description. But did she ask me to change it? Or did she quit the game?

Neither. Instead she closed her eyes and ears, and her friend nudged her when the thing was gone. There was practically no disturbance to the flow of the game, and no hard feelings. I actually got positive feedback from her.

So, what exactly prevents our hypothetical rape survivor from doing the same? Or taking a toilet break, or timeout to eat nachos?

More particular to you, if you stand up and leave, what prevents you from coming back?

dps

2013-11-01, 07:52 AM

There are two possibilities: you lean that way or you manage to keep the characters you play 100% separate from the people behind them. I've heard of and seen the former, never the latter.

Given that the typical PC is a murder hobo, the implications of that are very disturbing.

If a campaign allows PC to kill each other and rob each other, I can't see any logical reason to ban them from raping each other, either. However, having said that, it's not entirely an issue of logic; there's obviously an emotional component as well.

Jay R

2013-11-01, 11:07 AM

My wife and I are playing in a court intrigue game. Our characters are marrying, just to take plots about potential suitors seeking political alliances off the table.

In the game I'm running, her character is the virgin priestess of a militant virgin goddess, for similar reasons.

JusticeZero

2013-11-01, 03:48 PM

If 10 minutes of a 4 hour game are spent squirming in your seat, does that inevitably ruin the whole game?
You have been repeatedly making the same basic point, which is spoken like someone who not only does not have the problem that these positions are meant to adress, but who does not actually have any concept of what it is like to have the problem. It is on par with arguing that handicap access ramps are unneeded on curbs, because one can manage to get a chair over one through various ways. Alternate ways of constructing this include, "it should be fine to punch someone in the ribs who has a broken rib for fun; the pain is only temporary."
One: To some people, the images you are so casually tossing around are pure Kryptonite. They aren't going to make them squirm a bit for a couple minutes, they are going to set off a whole chain of awfulness. My wife can tell if someone tossed my particular trigger in my face a day and a half after the fact because of how I am acting "off", and mine is very minor compared to a lot of people I know who have the trigger that you are talking about throwing around casually.
Two: Many of the people who have that trigger really, really do not want you to know about it. it opens up a huge can of worms. Any time people know that someone has had certain things happen to them, they start getting treated very differently. It's awkward, and it often means that they are going to get hit with a lot more strange and upsetting things based on the strangeness. Some of them deal with it by aggressively telling people "yeah, I had a mind-scarring event as a child involving fettucini that haunts my nightmares to this day" so they can get it over with. Others don't, and keep everything secret.

AMFV

2013-11-01, 04:42 PM

Two questions: 1) Did you start RPGs as an adult and 2) do you primarily play with other adults who are already experienced roleplayers?

Because the stereotype arises primarily from players who are young, new, or both. It's common enough that you're the first person in this hobby who has expressed any sort of confusion regarding this matter in my records.

While pen-and-paper RPGs are niche enough that there probably isn't a good statistical study on, say, D&D in particular, the phenomenom exists across the spectrum of games and you can find ludologist studies on it based on videogames and children's game both.

It's an interesting topic in its own right, so if you want to discuss it in more depth you might want to start a new thread for it. :smallsmile:

For informal treatise on the subject, TV tropes has an illustrative list of examples. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VideoGameCrueltyPotential)

If there are two or three players who want to play this scene and another two or three don't, what prevents the latter group from taking a moment to eat nachos while the others play it out? (Also, see below.)

Oh, I agree it's completely fine to have issues with abortion or whatever religion... they also happen to be frequent topics of both public and casual discussion here, so strongly taking offense to their presence in a game is completely absurd.

As far as your arachnophobia example goes, I actually had an arachnophobe attend my game, and the random encounter roll indicated a spider. She visibly bleached at the description. But did she ask me to change it? Or did she quit the game?

Neither. Instead she closed her eyes and ears, and her friend nudged her when the thing was gone. There was practically no disturbance to the flow of the game, and no hard feelings. I actually got positive feedback from her.

So, what exactly prevents our hypothetical rape survivor from doing the same? Or taking a toilet break, or timeout to eat nachos?

More particular to you, if you stand up and leave, what prevents you from coming back?

I wouldn't come back, on principle, I'm kind of like that.

I have PTSD, or similar symptoms, if something triggers that, I can be having issues for days. Not sleeping, jumping at tiny sounds, that whole shebang. It isn't fair to another person to force them to endure that for your amusement any more than stabbing them in the shins to make them walk funny would be. Arachnophobia is a slightly different example, because it tends to be physical fear of spiders, and the mention of spiders won't likely trigger an episode. But not all problems are like that.

Do I have every right to leave a game that brings up topics I don't feel like dealing with while I'm relaxing, absolutely. I shouldn't be labeled as "less mature" because when I'm drinking and playing games with my friends I don't want to relive bad memories, and neither should anyone else.

prufock

2013-11-01, 04:59 PM

They're using a high charisma score as justification? Burn your character sheet, walk away from the table, and never look back.

Okay, okay, maybe I'm overreacting...

She argues that if a PC is Chaotic Evil (the party is mostly Neutral or Evil), "that's what their PC would do," and it would be perfectly OK. She also told me that "it's just a game," "this isn't a single-player video game where you can rant at the TV. The table is filled with other human beings," and "it's supposed to be fun for everyone, not just you."
Did she just equate roleplaying sexual assault with fun? :smallconfused: I take back what I said before, don't walk away from the table. Run.

Cerlis

2013-11-01, 08:43 PM

They're using a high charisma score as justification? Burn your character sheet, walk away from the table, and never look back.

Okay, okay, maybe I'm overreacting...

Did she just equate roleplaying sexual assault with fun? :smallconfused: I take back what I said before, don't walk away from the table. Run.

*shrug* some people thing murdering Goblins is fun *shrug*

Frozen_Feet

2013-11-02, 08:12 AM

You have been repeatedly making the same basic point, which is spoken like someone who not only does not have the problem that these positions are meant to adress, but who does not actually have any concept of what it is like to have the problem.

I have a very good concept of what it is like to have post traumatic stress symptoms. Mine just didn't form up to be chronic. As such, I can relate to both of your paragraphs.

The difference in the scenario in this particular case is that you, the person with those broken ribs, aren't the one who's about to get punched. Two healthy people want to punch each other. If you can take a break when they do that, is it necessary to exclude the punching, and is it necessary to leave the game for good?

You and AMFV seem to have caricatured my position somewhat. My stance isn't about me finding it funny to poke other people's triggers. Like I noted to Valadil, it's a matter of degrees.

(As a sidenote, AMFV, you're not quite right about arachnophobia. Someone with a case of it will bleach and shudder at the very mention of the word "spider". But you are right that it doesn't trigger a debilitating episode.)

It's about being able to stand an off-hand mention. That's why I used a morning newspaper as a litmus test. If reading one would cause you an episode, that's when you better start making your problems known, because otherwise it will get in the way of normal, socially acceptable conversation. "Normal, socially acceptable" in this case doesn't refer to actual playing out of a rape scene - it refers to saying it is a possibility, like in the original post. ("I'm personally not going to introduce this, but I won't stop someone else from doing it.")

I'm not approaching this question as one of the parties who would want to introduce these elements to a game. I'm approaching it from the perspective of a GM who is getting this kind of stuff thrown at his face from out of the blue. (It's not even a hypothetical position to me, because I've had exactly this happen to me on multiple occasions.)

The difference is that if a GM stands up and leaves, that means no game for anyone. Booting out problem players sounds like the ideal solution, but it runs into practical problems. GM has in-game power to mete out in-game punishments, but out-of-game? Not all games happen online, where you can just ban a player and expect to find a replacement. The benefits of banning a topic, or banning a player, must be weighed against benefits of having an interesting game, or occasionally, having a game at all.

This ironically loops back to your second point, JusticeZero: I'm personally precisely the kind of people who hates walking on eggshells. That is why I hold ability to shrug off awkward material in such high regard. I want to be able to discuss things and crack jokes about things that bother me without people getting up at arms about them, because keeping secrets is tiresome and quite often only makes matters worse.

Princess

2013-11-02, 11:51 PM

To sum up what's already been said: Everyone at the table has the right to object, and stop, any 'trigger warning' material in a game. If anyone says "No, not this," then bury that theme and move on.

GungHo

2013-11-04, 10:58 AM

I honestly can't grasp where this would even come up.

Balthazar: "Ok, DM, we all go to bed for the night."
DM: "Ok, the night passes with out incident, you're all well rested"
Heywood: "Oh, not Thorfin."
Thorfin: "Uh, why not Thorfin?"
Heywood: "Oh, me and Trogdor buggered him. Twice."
Trogdor: "Yeah, twice!"
Thorfin: "What? Why?!?"
Heywood: "We're Chaotic Evil. You should have set up a guard, yah see? It could have been worse!"
Trogdor: "Yeah, like an aboleth or somethin with tentacles..."
Thorfin: "But I didn't say it was okay."
Heywood: "That's what makes it evil!"
Trogdor: "Yay, evil!"

Sith_Happens

2013-11-04, 03:49 PM

*shrug* some people thing murdering Goblins is fun *shrug*

I honestly can't grasp where this would even come up.

I think it's important to juxtapose these two points. Sure, from most real-world perspectives, sexual assault probably shouldn't be considered in a particularly different light than a large number of generally less controversial topics. The difference, rather, is in the assumptions of the game itself. The vast majority of RPGs assume that some amount of homicide of varying justifiability is going to occur around and even be committed by the PCs, to the point of enshrining it within their rules. Conversely, most RPGs do not assume that any particular amount of sexual assault is going to occur, at least not anywhere near the PCs.

So, regardless of whether there should be a difference of perspective between rape and murder in the general sense, the specific context of such occurring within the confines of a game creates a difference of perspective.

Gavran

2013-11-04, 04:57 PM

Given that the typical PC is a murder hobo, the implications of that are very disturbing.

If a campaign allows PC to kill each other and rob each other, I can't see any logical reason to ban them from raping each other, either. However, having said that, it's not entirely an issue of logic; there's obviously an emotional component as well.

Nobody is roleplaying a murder hobo. People act that way for mechanical non-roleplay reasons.

Edit: Not that I'd even agree that the typical PC is played that way, though it certainly does exist.

dps

2013-11-04, 07:24 PM

Nobody is roleplaying a murder hobo. People act that way for mechanical non-roleplay reasons.

Edit: Not that I'd even agree that the typical PC is played that way, though it certainly does exist.

Perhaps "stererotypical PC" would have been more accurate than "typical PC", but I think that the point still stands.

And I've certainly known players who thought being murder hobos in the context of the game was "fun", and it certainly didn't seem to be because the mechanics encouraged it.

Gavran

2013-11-04, 07:55 PM

Perhaps "stererotypical PC" would have been more accurate than "typical PC", but I think that the point still stands.

And I've certainly known players who thought being murder hobos in the context of the game was "fun", and it certainly didn't seem to be because the mechanics encouraged it.

Every murder hobo PC I've known or heard of has been shallow. Combat is fun. Getting loot is fun. Feeling like a badass is fun. Those are player motivations, not roleplaying decisions, you know? Those are the mechanics I'm referring to, rather than the rules of the game (though the standard quest reinforces it.)

Ultimately though, it's that vanilla murder isn't at all out of context for most RPGs.

obryn

2013-11-04, 10:12 PM

As far as your arachnophobia example goes, I actually had an arachnophobe attend my game, and the random encounter roll indicated a spider. She visibly bleached at the description. But did she ask me to change it? Or did she quit the game?

Neither. Instead she closed her eyes and ears, and her friend nudged her when the thing was gone. There was practically no disturbance to the flow of the game, and no hard feelings. I actually got positive feedback from her.

So, what exactly prevents our hypothetical rape survivor from doing the same? Or taking a toilet break, or timeout to eat nachos?

More particular to you, if you stand up and leave, what prevents you from coming back?
I just want to be clear here. Are you saying that being a rape survivor is just like mild arachnophobia?

If so, that indicates a rather staggering lack of perspective. And empathy, for that matter.

What I'm really not getting is why the onus is on the survivor to make a big deal out of the situation, to get up and leave our whatever, as opposed to just, you know, not roleplaying out a rape scene in the first place.

-O

Sith_Happens

2013-11-05, 01:34 AM

I just want to be clear here. Are you saying that being a rape survivor is just like mild arachnophobia?

If so, that indicates a rather staggering lack of perspective. And empathy, for that matter.

Actually, I think you're the one severely underestimating how big a deal a phobia can be. "Completely freezes up for 10+ minutes just from hearing the word 'spider'" is not "mild."

SiuiS

2013-11-05, 04:15 AM

I just want to be clear here. Are you saying that being a rape survivor is just like mild arachnophobia?

If so, that indicates a rather staggering lack of perspective. And empathy, for that matter.

What I'm really not getting is why the onus is on the survivor to make a big deal out of the situation, to get up and leave our whatever, as opposed to just, you know, not roleplaying out a rape scene in the first place.

It's a matter of context clues.

For one, there is a noticeable difference between "uncomfortable with situation" and "uncomfortable with situation because of personal trauma". The second one has a qualifier, the first one does not. Because of the existence of the qualifier, it is possible to give a blanket answer to the first ("tough it out, or leave") and a different answer to the second ("I'm sorry, should we talk about it?" etc.). The problem, conversationally, is people ignore these qualifiers or assume them, when the other side does not.

And frankly, some of the discussion here has been tantamount to "Man, I love nuts, I could live off nuts and no other food. Everyone should live off nuts!", "What, even allergic people? Man, you're so rude!", "... What? That's stupid. Don't be asinine". This is a very touchy topic, it would behoove us all to step back a bit and evaluate whether we are all on the exact same footi9ng before making these assumptions.

For two, there is the very real issue of Group Dynamic. Just like above, it's possible for the general to receive different answer than the specific. "Should sexual assault/etc. be okay in roleplaying?" and "Should sexual assault/etc. be okay in roleplaying with a group that wants to address these themes?" are worlds apart.

The crux, mister OP, is that you are in a group that is okay with it but don't seem yourself to be okay with it. The question is, socially, is it okay to force my will on the group? Which social issues allow this? To what degree? At what point does this behavior go from being socially acceptable, laudable even, to being whiny and controlling?

We CANNOT answer this question for certain. We can give guidelines, heuristic principles, and allow you to derive your own assessment tools from the collective. That is all.

I find it clear that Frozen_Feet is arguing the generic position of 'no, just because you're squeamish in general does not mean you get to veto the game, especially against everyone else at the table'. That is a reasonable stance, and frankly, one I'm glad to see - we as a society tend too much toward ends of spectrum, either tiptoeing on imaginary eggshells just in case, or taking refuge in audacity. Frozen Feet is not correlating being assaulted with a mild phobia, except in the very, very broad categorical sense of 'personal issue which could cause this reaction'. And I mean broad in the same way that chairs and Obryn are identical because you're both nouns.

'The onus is on the survivor' for a lot of reasons. Some of them aren't okay - societal pressure, victim blamery, etc., which I'm not going to touch on. In a social group of friends, who you trust to delve into the psyche with, and tell stories with, however; it is up to you to inform ther people of your triggers and baggage simply because until you do, they cannot make an informed decision. It is not the purview of a chef to never cook with nuts because some people are allergic to nuts; it is up to the chef to give warning, and the consumer to both make the decision not to blindly eat, and also to inform the chef.

Some groups do indeed want to deal with these themes and issues. It's not our place in this thread to judge them,. however hard it may be to abstain. The question is, can one person assume Moral Rectitude and use that authority to shut down a group? That is not about the burden or onus of declaration. Part of what Frozen Feet seems to be against is the assumption that if one side can make passing mention to rape, it gives them Power and Authority and makes any dissenting opinion automatically wrong. Political Correctness at its worst.

The answer is, as always, try to be considerate, mature adults who approach the issue without bias, assumptions or a sense of entitlement.

Actually, I think you're the one severely underestimating how big a deal a phobia can be. "Completely freezes up for 10+ minutes just from hearing the word 'spider'" is not "mild."

But "Mild arachnophobia" is not "Freeze for ten plus minutes at mention of word spider" either. Again, the qualifier specifically hedges out that view.

Jay R

2013-11-05, 10:34 AM

Delta

2013-11-05, 10:42 AM

Whether the act was consensual or non-consensual for the character,
whether the act was consensual or non-consensual for the player, I don't want to watch somebody role-playing intimate relations with my wife.

Well let me chime in with the "Everything's fine as long as everyone around the table is fine with it" crowd, but as you correctly pointed out, someone in this situation was not fine with it.

As always, it's a very personal thing. I for one would have no problems whatsoever with this happening, so it's really nothing that anyone should be making general assumptions about.

AMFV

2013-11-05, 11:39 AM

molten_dragon

2013-11-05, 02:16 PM

I am putting this in the general RPG section, even though this is about a 3.5 game, because the general idea could relate to any RPG.

My wife and I recently joined (or in her case, re-joined) a 3.5 game. I've known the DM and his wife (who also plays) for several years. I don't know the other players. My wife played with the group for a few years before we met, but quit gaming with them. (That was also before she and I met, so I had nothing to do with it.) The DM allows just about any 3.5 book, as well as Star Wars and d20 Modern. (Don't ask. It makes sense in context.) This includes 3rd party books.

My wife really likes one of the classes in Book of Erotic Fantasy, so made one of her back-up characters that class. (The game is known to eat PCs for breakfast, so having back-ups is recommended.) Since she knew the DM's style, and she built completely out of that book, she took the feat Sterile so her PC could not get pregnant. Her next PC is a Warlock, with a template and PrC out of that same book. While she was building, she wondered to me if she should take that same feat on this PC. (The Warlock has a CHA of 24 at ECL 8.) I said since she was feat starved, and I was building a WIZ who was supposed to be partnered with hers, I'd just take the spell that makes me sterile for 1 day/CL, and keep casting it on myself.
"That works for you, but what about the other PCs, or NPCs," she replied. We talked to the DM about it, and he said he would not send NPC's to assault her, but would not stop any PC's.

My take on the issue is that any player who thinks it's acceptable to sexually assault another PC is an immature jerk who should be thrown out of the game. There are some lines that should never be crossed, and sexual assault of a PC is one of them.

She argues that if a PC is Chaotic Evil (the party is mostly Neutral or Evil), "that's what their PC would do," and it would be perfectly OK. She also told me that "it's just a game," "this isn't a single-player video game where you can rant at the TV. The table is filled with other human beings," and "it's supposed to be fun for everyone, not just you."

I am going to throw this to the Playground. Am I overreacting? Is it OK for a player to act like that, if the player of the target PC and the DM are OK with it?

One important thing to keep in mind regarding such things is that things like that in a game could bring up some bad real-life experiences for certain players.

A couple years ago I was running a game, and one of the PCs, who was the ruler of a kingdom, had a child in the game. I ran a story line where the child (i.e. the next in line for the throne) was kidnapped in-game, and died in a botched rescue attempt. I had discussed this with the player involved ahead of time, and they were fine with it. But it sent one of our other players (not the one who had the kid in-game) away from the table in tears. It turned out she had had a miscarriage a little while before, and the storyline in-game had really affected her. She understood I didn't do it intentionally (none of us had even known) but she was still pretty shaken up by it.

So I would make absolutely sure, before including sensitive topics like that in a game, that everyone at the table is okay with it first, not just the DM and the player(s) involved. If someone isn't, it has no place in the game.

GolemsVoice

2013-11-05, 03:37 PM

Everybody should keep in mind that we don't know IF these things would even come to pass and in what form. I think (and sincerely hope) that there will never be a situation where somebody will discuss raping another being in detail during a game session.

Sith_Happens

2013-11-05, 05:15 PM

But "Mild arachnophobia" is not "Freeze for ten plus minutes at mention of word spider" either. Again, the qualifier specifically hedges out that view.

"Mild arachnophobia" is also not the kind of arachnophobia that was described in this thread, "freezes up for ten minutes upon hearing the word 'spider'" is. Therefore obryn was severely misunderstanding or misrepresenting the analogy that Frozen_Feet was making.

dps

2013-11-05, 06:11 PM

Lorsa

2013-11-05, 06:55 PM

I think a lot of people have missed (or ignored) one relevant detail. The OP was the husband.

Whether the act was consensual or non-consensual for the character, whether the act was consensual or non-consensual for the player, I don't want to watch somebody role-playing intimate relations with my wife.

Yes, I know the character isn't the player, but the player is the one you're role-playing with, and we all all do identify with our characters.

And that is something for them to figure out in their relationship. What's right for you and your wife might not be right for another couple. There needs to be agreement in these matters in a relationship or if there's no agreement, acceptance of the differences and being able to live with them.

It really matters little how we want our relationships or what we want to see or not see in our games. It only matters what these actual people that are playing this specific game think.

I suppose the thing that I find most interesting is how does the character feel? People are usually not okay with being the victims of sexual assaults and a Warlock that was assaulted would probably not stay in a party with those people. Depending on the Warlock's alignment, it's even possible these characters would be killed.

And for the pregnancy problem; I see no reason there shouldn't be magic to fix that problem for the character, not just something invididual wizards can place on themselves.

Sith_Happens

2013-11-05, 07:00 PM

Question: if your wife was an actress, would you be comfortable with characters she's playing having romantic scenes with other players?

I asked someone else the same thing earlier, and the point was made that actors are generally several degrees more separated from their characters than RPG players. That said, the comparison is not entirely without merit.

Jay R

2013-11-05, 10:29 PM

Question: if your wife was an actress, would you be comfortable with characters she's playing having romantic scenes with other players?

1. If my wife were an actress, she would be a very different person, and our relationship would be quite different. The analogy is not analogous.

2. A PC is a creation, and an extension, of an individual, in a way that a stage role is not. I identify with Ornrandir and Pteppic in a way I never identified with the Doctor in Macbeth, Sir Sagramore in Camelot, Dominguez in The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit, or any other role I've played on stage.

3. This thread is not about "having romantic scenes"; it was about sexual assault. Yes, I would be extremely upset about that happening to my wife on stage.

andresrhoodie

2013-11-05, 11:33 PM

I think any of the players who would actually consider raping another players wifes character, especially with him sitting there needs to be kicked out of the game.

That sort of thing is so out line I can honestly say it would start a RL fight in most of the groups I've played in.

There are ways to do things if everyone is actually okay with it and not being socially pressured to just act okay with it though.

For instance my very serious ex and I used to play together. Her character was incredibly self righteous female paladin. Once between sessions where they were going against a pair of succubus villains I joked to her that I should have them try dominate on her because it seems like the sort of thing a Demon would enjoy doing.

She looked dead on and said to go for it as long as I kept it non explicit. So I did. She volunteered to go in alone to try to save some victims they were draining (i change energy drain to be CON damage so it takes a while). Sure enough she gets on a run of horrible luck with saves and winds up being Succubi chow for a bit. We dont describe anything graphic,

just "you know the sort of things they do to mortals..... and they've never had a paladin before so they're really enjoying taking their time"

I didnt count on some of the other players whose characters were annoyed with the holier then though paladin seeing she was in trouble and deliberately delaying their rescue for a while to watch. Again nothing graphic but her character was pissed. Her the player thought it was funny and one of the other female players kept making jokes about wanting to play one of the demons. She didnt though.

So was it sexual assault in game? Certainly. Was anyone annoyed? No and I doubt anyone but the most sensitive would be.

So it can be done. But player on player? Nah, not a good idea, ever and as a GM I would never have done it if the player in question wasnt my SO who had explicitly okay'd it before hand.

SiuiS

2013-11-05, 11:52 PM

I think a lot of people have missed (or ignored) one relevant detail.

See what I said about assumptions on the stance of others, above.

"Mild arachnophobia" is also not the kind of arachnophobia that was described in this thread, "freezes up for ten minutes upon hearing the word 'spider'" is. Therefore obryn was severely misunderstanding or misrepresenting the analogy that Frozen_Feet was making.

That's fair. I don't recall it as being severe arachnophobia mentioned, but I've been giving this thread a light touch.

Sith_Happens

2013-11-06, 04:04 AM

That's fair. I don't recall it as being severe arachnophobia mentioned, but I've been giving this thread a light touch.

I'm not sure myself why I keep opening it. Probably fascination with how civil it's (at least mostly) stayed for five pages now.

SiuiS

2013-11-06, 04:23 AM

I'm not sure myself why I keep opening it. Probably fascination with how civil it's (at least mostly) stayed for five pages now.

Indeed! This conversation is the only reason I'm back, actually. Now that that's tidied up, I'll take my leave~!

*curtsies*

supermonkeyjoe

2013-11-06, 04:38 AM

JusticeZero

2013-11-06, 12:04 PM

I find it clear that Frozen_Feet is arguing the generic position of 'no, just because you're squeamish in general does not mean you get to veto the game, especially against everyone else at the table'.
And in this specific case, it is one which I disagree. The reason is because this is not merely like "having an allergy", it is like having an allergy where the presence of the allergy itself implies things about the person with the allergy which many people find troubling or charged.

It is like having a controversial group which some people treat poorly, some people treat well, but even good treatment can be awkward or poorly done. That group is known for often having a certain food allergy. Also, there are a LOT of people in that group - one in six of the people on the street. Your cook wants to know if anyone will care if they puree the stuff that they are allergic to, and mix it into food that it doesn't always appear in; after all, they can just ask the waiter, who might treat that group weirdly, if the food contains any of that ingredient.

It is putting the people with the condition in question in a position where they may be forced to out themselves. That isn't cool.

So you do not need a reason to object, and one sentence from anyone should be enough to shut that down.

Jacob.Tyr

2013-11-06, 01:45 PM

Leaving aside a general point of I dunno what the heck kinda elfgames y'all are playing...
-O
This is my favourite reaction ever.

I've been following this thread for awhile, trying to figure out how to chime in without potentially offending one side or the other. On one hand, a lot of people play DnD as an escapist fantasy for fulfillment reasons. In those types of games this sort of thing would really disturb me. On the other I've played characters that I personally thought were atrocious and were really challenging to roleplay. My favourite playstyle is secretly-evil within a good party, coming up with "good" reasons to do things that further my character's goals.

With that being said, the most important thing alignment dictates for my character's has always been goals, not actions. A good character I play will try to make life better for everyone, typically with a focus on the downtrodden and repressed. Evil characters focus on amassing power for themselves. Neutral are typically one side or the other of this, either by appropriating their gains where they will be the most useful or by directing them to an outside concept (nature etc).

An evil character raids treasure to gain power for him/her self. All proceeds go directly to the character for their sake.

A good will raid a treasure for the good of the people/church/world. They may not even be raiding for treasure, they may kill a dragon to help the countryside. This may result in them getting better equipment to use in overcoming evil in the world and protecting the weak, or even donating piles of treasure.

Neutral raids the treasure because, well, maybe they want something from it. They'll keep the magic XYZ and use it because they think it's cool, but they don't care about the hoe of infinite plowing. They'll toss that to the first peasants they come across.

The thing about my outlook is that I honestly can't think of a character concept that will be able to further one of their goals through rape. It's just an entirely alien thought to me, and if a player at a game I was in decided that his character would rape anything I don't know that I'd be able to figure out why.

I've played a character that worked to destabilize a region into war so they could enslave the peasantry and make a profit in slave trading. They were evil. They encouraged war, famine, and classism through violence lies and bribery. They did some pretty terrible things, but they were always with a goal in mind. I could detach myself from their actions really easily, and I didn't feel like a terrible person for what the character did. The character had motivation, a goal, and acted evilly to achieve their own selfish ends.

So, while I can understand not having my character be an extension of myself, and thinking that it's a harsh reason to judge a person, I can't understand having a character that actively engages in rape. Hell, I can even see having "rapist" as part of a backstory. But I feel like any game that has rape as a goal and a means to that goal is not a mature game in any means. It is, if anything, immature.

If anyone can explain to me an in character reason for why you'd commit a rape that fits a character concept that would actually work in any game, let me know. But I've never been in such a game, and don't know that I'd care to be.

Scow2

2013-11-06, 04:52 PM

So, while I can understand not having my character be an extension of myself, and thinking that it's a harsh reason to judge a person, I can't understand having a character that actively engages in rape. Hell, I can even see having "rapist" as part of a backstory. But I feel like any game that has rape as a goal and a means to that goal is not a mature game in any means. It is, if anything, immature. You say mature like it's a good thing. Please, leave maturity out of HappyFunGameTime.

And immaturity tend to be extremely fun, whether it's finding out the top speed of your shiny new car, building a huge project from all the Lego Sets you've been buying for your kid, getting absolutely hammered at a party, or anything else that someone's finally old enough to do all the things they wanted to do before they were old enough... and everything gathered along the way.

obryn

2013-11-06, 07:04 PM

You say mature like it's a good thing. Please, leave maturity out of HappyFunGameTime.

And immaturity tend to be extremely fun, whether it's finding out the top speed of your shiny new car, building a huge project from all the Lego Sets you've been buying for your kid, getting absolutely hammered at a party, or anything else that someone's finally old enough to do all the things they wanted to do before they were old enough... and everything gathered along the way.
I think your point would have a lot more weight if we weren't talking about the specific "HappyFun" variety of imaginary elfgame rape.

The thing about my outlook is that I honestly can't think of a character concept that will be able to further one of their goals through rape. It's just an entirely alien thought to me, and if a player at a game I was in decided that his character would rape anything I don't know that I'd be able to figure out why.
Word.

-O

Scow2

2013-11-07, 12:43 AM

When it comes to themes like this, I think any player has the right to veto the subject, this is a collaborative effort, completely in the control of the DM and the players, it CAN be changed, it's not a film, it's not a book, if someone is getting upset by what's happening, stop it and change it.

And even if everyone was O.K with it, I would still veto this, OP, you say your wife is worried about her character getting pregnant if she's assaulted as it will take the character out of the game for a while, does that mean to imply that after being sexually assaulted by another PC the character will be absolutely fine to just carry on with them the next day? In my book that would be pretty much a game-ender for one PC or the other, evil campaign or not.She might be, depending on how the situation plays out. Choosing to protect herself against the possibility of pregnancy, but not against the assault itself, might actually be the player (not character) indicating that they want the character to be sexually assaulted (Though not necessarily... but this is fantasy we're talking about). It might not be treated 'realistically' at all. Yes, we all know that rape is a very horrific thing in the real world, but, well... people's fantasies can be weird. I know a lot of people who want to roleplay farmers, despite how ****ty the job is IRL.

If anyone can explain to me an in character reason for why you'd commit a rape that fits a character concept that would actually work in any game, let me know. But I've never been in such a game, and don't know that I'd care to be.I guess I can answer this one too: From a realistic standpoint, a character would commit rape for a number of reasons, from demonstration of superiority/dominance, to fulfilling a personal desire - all the wealth and prestige in the world are worthless when all you want in life is that gypsy girl who happens to say "No". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqGL9B_TPTI)

I think your point would have a lot more weight if we weren't talking about the specific "HappyFun" variety of imaginary elfgame rape.Well, I've played in some very silly games entirely based around what would be considered sexual assault, handled in the most immature fashion imaginable... and a good time was had by all. So, nyah!